Some docs, worried about their reputations, are trying to fight back against negative reviews, requiring patients to sign contracts — critics call them “gag orders” — promising not to post comments to public sites. Others ask patients to sign over copyright to future comments, hoping for leverage to have any nasty tags removed.

Mutual protection — or censorship?
Such contracts haven’t been tested in court, and Internet law experts say they’re unlikely to prevail. Still, proponents argue that the waivers are necessary to protect doctors hamstrung by medical ethics and privacy laws. Critics say they’re nothing short of censorship.

“Essentially, patients are being asked to trade in their freedom of speech for medical care,” said John Swapceinski, founder of RateMDs.com, where 400 new ratings of doctors are added every day....."

AND..."

As awareness grows, the waivers may be backfiring on doctors, drawing scathing attention —and possible government sanctions — to the very physicians who sought to avoid it most.

RateMd.com has begun posting names of doctors who require waivers to a so-called “Wall of Shame.”

Soon, Angie’s List, the behemoth of online review sites, will begin posting alerts that highlight docs who ask for what founder Angie Hicks calls “medical gag orders.”

“This is a very defensive action for the medical profession,” said Hicks, founder of the Indianapolis, Ind., site that boasts more than 1 million members and reviews of 160,000 health providers. “This is an important element for consumers. It’s an important way for them to get feedback they might not have been getting.”

Recently, the Office of Civil Rights for the federal department of Health and Human Services forced a doctors’ practice to stop requiring patients to sign waivers in exchange for privacy protections already mandated under HIPAA, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. 

“A covered entity’s obligation to comply with all requirements of the Privacy Rule cannot be conditioned on the patient’s silence,” reads the case ruling, which does not identify the practice or any patient who complained.

HIPPA violators could be subject to fines of at least $1,000 per patient, and perhaps much higher, an HHS spokesman said...."

An excellent article and possibly the terms of the future--- however illegal it may be.

I really like the WALL OF SHAME, though. Why else would you be signing waivers?? Too many past screwups for comfort?